It's always amusing to watch the left try to re-define what success is. And they wonder why they're so despised by so many.

The primary objective in Iraq was to remove Saddam.  The SECONDARY objective is to establish a democratic regime. But personally, I could care less if the Iraqi's have a democracy or not. I just wanted Saddam's regime removed.

If someone else causes trouble, we can take them out too.

I would like to point out that the reason we went into Iraq is not available to us. The president of this once great, and hopefully to become great again in four more years, country, has been moving some "goalposts" of his own. These would be the "reason" for invading Iraq. He has told us it's democracy, he has told us WMD's, he has told us saddam is a "threat" he has shouted Bullshit all over the place, but the fact remains that no where, NO WHERE in the world have we EVER EVER EVER made such a Mistake as we made in Vietnam and we have made in Iraq (both times under chimps for presidents).

Sir Peter actually has a valid point.

Democracy is alien to the Arab mind. Unlike the west, where we do our best to seperate church and state, Islam is tied extremely close to the politics of the land. This has created a culture of theocracy that has a defined Earthly heirarchy of enlightened leaders'. Ergo, not every man (and woman) is created equally. Add to the perversions of Muhammeds original recital of prophecy that has occured over the past few centuries, and you find a political climate of not only godheads ruling the populace, but a repressive culture towards women and infidels.

Originally the Koran was understood to teach equality on a personal and cultural level. The Koran is the only holy book of Judaic tradition that specifically addresses women concerning their rights as humans. Mohammed himself was close friends with many Jewish and Christian teachers, who he consulted with as the recital was revealed. Mohammed did not want to be a prophet, but understood the great importance that monotheism could have in uniting the Arab people, much like it had their Jewish and Christian neighbors. The Koran did teach equality, it did teach kinsmanship with the other faiths, and even Muhammed recognized that Christ was Al-lahs wisdom incarnate in human form. Yet with all things, it's lessons have become perveted as Islamic factions have splintered between the mystical and reasoning. Men lust for power, and we will twist anything available to our own ends to achieve that power. This is the nature of Arabic politics, it is the perversion of the Islamic faith and this is why 14yr old boys strap explosives to their bodies and blow up civilians.

Not that Christianity has a much better track record. But thats another response for another article.

So in effect, we really should have just laid waste to the region and taken what resources we can acquire. Why deny our own nature?

"The SECONDARY objective is to establish a democratic regime."

True. But you still can't call the whole mission a complete succes until all the goals are completed. Although you can call it a fair success on the fact that the troops completed the primary objective.

"But personally, I could care less if the Iraqi's have a democracy or not."

Neither do I. Though I think our President sure puts alot more weight on the objective then you or I do.

The mesaure of Iraq will be the type of government that develops. If it allows radical factions to operate and is another anti West leaning country WE LOST!

COL Gene, something tells me that, as far as you were concerned, as soon as Prs. Bush put his name to the idea, WE LOST! ;~D

What makes you think we're not already fighting Iran (Syria, and other terrorist sponsoring nations also)? There is a lot at stake for terrorist nations (especially the Jihadist types) in Iraq. To think that they are merely sitting around rooting for "their" side would be grossly naive.

Not true. Iran and Iraq didn't get along.

Hopefully the Iraqi's will be able to have a peaceful, democratic government. But if they fail that, it's not our loss, it's theirs.

No no no Draginol. Wrong answer !

Wow, for America to fail in this regard would have catestrophic consequences. Would the Middle East ever forgive the USA ? Failure to establish democracy in Iraq rather than to leave it to collapse into chaos would give every terrorist the reason they need to continue attacking the USA - and that includes on home soil....and believe me it only takes one or two to slip through the checks and controls to cause significant human carnage.

Regardless of anyones opinion on the legitimacy of the US invasion of Iraq, Democracy has to prevail and the Bush administration should concentrate its efforts on securing world support for that cause alone. I think he is trying to acheive that gaol but to what end he will succeed I don't know.

I sincerely hope he does, I shudder to think of the consquences if he does not !

when you have a flat tire and your goal is tire change, i dont believe anyone would feel youd succeeded in that goal if you simply removed the old tire or if, having removed the old tire, you attempted to drive around on the rim for a while.

how does one succeed at regime change--and there's no question that was the goal (ill be happy to provide the quotes)--by merely removing the previous regime and not replacing it? 

Parated2K

I have agreed with Bush when his policies are sound. I agreed with the road map in the Middle East and the six part talks with North Korea. I do know that Iraq was not a danger to the US and had nothing to do with the radicals in the moslem world. We created more enemies by going into Iraq than we made friends. Almost every assumption that Bush had about the Iraq War were totally wrong. No WMD; WE were not received as liberators- We are now the evil force; we needed two time the force levels that Bush sent (even tough Generals Franks and Schoomaker told Bush it would take 300,000-400,000); we have spent about 4 times more then his cost estimates; we should be down to about 30,000 troops and are at 150,000 and increasing and the Iraq oil revenue was to pay the majority of the cost - where is that money?

What I said is that IF the government that results after we leave Iraq is anti West, we have lost BIG TIME!

"I don't think that one can even remotely compare Germany to Iraq. To do so would be anti-semitic. Hussein did not kill over four million people through purges. Hitler did and so did Stalin. This kind of statement could easily be construed as anti-semitic."

Don't worry about it.

It's not the number that makes the devil, it's the reason. Hitler killed Jews for the same reason Saddam killed Shi'ites. He hated them and needed somebody to blame for whatever goes wrong. It doesn't matter whether the victims are Jews or Shi''ites or whatever. The deed is the same.

Saddam was every bit as evil and dangerous as Hitler was then. The difference lies merely in the means the two fascists could employ. The Baathist party of Saddam (which also rules Syria!) even calls itself an Arab nationalsocialist party, and they are.

Iraq was a heretical country, thus an attack was justified. I was quite surprised that the Pope was against the war. But then again, as a devout English Protestant, I know that the papists are evil anyway.

Iraq was NOT a heretical country since it was never Christian. What was the reason for regime change in Iraq. It was not to enhance our security because rogue states do not attack major powers. They also do not provide WMD if there is any chance it can be traced back to them. The threat that faces the US and other Western nations had nothing to do with Saddam and when we took it onto our selves to go into an Islamic nation we made a major error. Saddam was evil and should have been removed from power by the people of Iraq NOT the US. Saddam did not present any measurable danger to America. There are far more dangerous dictators than Saddam. We have created a hot bed of terrorist activity in Iraq where none existed before Bush invaded that country!